That would be done to cause a little panic amongst the farmers, who would come to the conclusion that it would be better to sell. So far as I can remember they never increased the price of the wheat in the middle of the week. Farmers would come into town at the end of the week, find that the wheat was up in price, and on returning home they would see that it was down and then would sell.

5831. Before the establishment of the Pool was it not the practice for farmers to sell their crop before it was harvested?—Yes, they would sell a portion of it.

5832. Then the increase you have spoken about would not affect them?—The farmer would only sell a portion of his crop.

5833. As a farmer you get a certain quantity of wheat back for seed?—Yes.

5834. If you get more than you require for seed what do you do with what is left?—Usually sell it. I have used it for stock: but a farmer can generally estimate what he requires very closely.

5835. Have you ever heard of a farmer having wheat left over and sending it with new wheat since the beginning of the Pool?—I have only read of it being done.

5836. As A farmer who sends his wheat to the Pool, do you think anyone who does such a thing as I have described should be punished?—Certainly. Then it is not legal to sell wheat outside the Pool, but it is done on the quiet. The manner with which the business is carried out is unfair. A man who has fowls to feed has to pay a big price for wheat. He gets 3s. 6d. only for the wheat for the fowls, and when he buys it he has to pay 4s. 6d. for it.

5837. Under the Pool the prices realised go to the farmers?—I realise that, but while there is so much wheat being wasted it would be better to sell it locally a bit cheaper.

5838. By Mr. BROWN: Have you ever known of competition in regard to the price amongst the wheat speculators prior to the establishment of the Pool?—No.

5839. Do you think the co-operative societies could find overseas markets as well as the wheat brokers?—I think so. When the old Producers' Union was in existence I shipped a thousand bags through them one year and I got a gain of 23 bushels in weight, and that was the first year that such a thing was allowed by any firm. On these occasions the Producers' Union would do just as well as Dalgety's,and even better.

5840. Did the price compare favourably with the price offered by the speculators?—Certainly.

5841. You think that the farmers and settlers should market their wheat without any interference of speculators?—I cannot see any reason why they should not.

5842. By the CHAIRMAN: It would be necessary in some cases to make advances against the wheat?—In some cases, it would.

5843. Therefore the co-operative society would require to have financial stability so as to be able to make those advances?—Yes, in new districts.

5844. You must take the whole state?—It would be necessary for them to able to do so if necessary.

5845. By Mr. BROWN: The it would be necessary for every farmer to be a member of the co-operative society?—I think they should be.

5846. You favour compulsion then in industrial matters?—If a man was looking after his own interests he would be in it. I am one of those who believe in organisation. Some call them honourable understandings, but it is unionism all the same.

5847. By the CHAIRMAN: You would not disagree with the proposal that a man should for all time be compelled to send his wheat to one source?—That is a big question, but I do not think that majority of farmers would object.

5848. Do you think they would do so without an Act of Parliament?—The farmer as an individual likes to beat his neighbours, and if he is beaten himself he starts to squeak.

5849. We have been told it would be necessary to introduce legislation to compel all farmers to come in to prevent some from blacklegging?—I think it would be a good scheme.

(The witness retired.)

WILLIAM GORDON COOTE, Farmer, Nyabing, sworn and examined:

5850. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you desire to give evidence before the Commission?—I have been appointed by the Southern Farmers, Ltd., to give evidence on their behalf. I handled wheat for the Westralian Farmers Ltd., last year at Nyabing, Badgeminup, Badgebup, Kwobrup and Wurnup. Our arrangements for the 1916-17 harvest were entirely satisfactory. I never had any trouble. So far as this year is concerned things have not worked so smoothly. The system seems to have been to complicated. We are a small company, and we have had to receive the money before we paid it. We have not a large capital to work on, and there seems to have been a lot of red tape in connection with payments. The consequence is that we have not been able to pay our lumpers up to date. Last year I had no difficulty. Whenever any work was done the Westralian Farmers paid me, and I paid the lumpers. There is no wheat standing on the line, but there seems to be the trouble that the truckings have to be recorded from Tambellup. It appears to me that it is a mistake to have two departments handling this wheat. We have handled 103,373 bushels at the sidings. The Southern Farmers, Ltd., handled at all sidings on the Nyabing line. So far as the actual handling of wheat goes, we have made a loss. We have paid in lumpers' wages for the actual lumping of the wheat and plant £442 1s. 11d., and including the travelling expenses of the secretary and other expenses, the total comes to £453 11s. We pay our secretary £5 a week in addition to this, and we have only received for the actual handling of the wheat £416 5s. 4d. The point I want stress is that when we are handling a small quantity of wheat we cannot handle it at the same rate as we could handle a large quantity. At all the sidings we handle a comparatively small quantity, and whatever payment is made it should be arranged on a sliding scale. It must be clear that a stack of 40,000 bags can be handled much cheaper than a stack of 10,000 bags. Another point is that a certain quantity of weevily wheat has to our knowledge gone into the Tambellup depot from the Wurnup siding. The lumper we had at Wurnup assured me that weevily wheat was trucked from Wurnup. I traced the trucking through, and I found that they were not rejected at Tambellup.

5851. By Mr. BROWN: Was that a large quantity?—I do not know the quantity, possibly one truck.

5852. By the CHAIRMAN: You have that only from hearsay?—I have it from the lumper himself. He is an expert in the wheat trade. I do not believe there is a better man than he is at the work. His name is Kemble.

5853. Was he working in Tambellup?—I think not. He told me that weevily wheat had been trucked into the stack at Tambellup.

5854. If a statement was made to us that weevily wheat was received at Tambellup and was sent direct to the mill, would you say that statement was incorrect?—I know it is incorrect, because I have seen the outturn from Tambellup to-day. I know that the Wurnup wheat was not rejected. We wish to handle our own wheat. We do not say that Westralian Farmer, Ltd., have not made mistakes. We think so far as the Southern Farmers go they have not been sufficiently remunerated for handling wheat. That is because the quantities handled at our sidings have been so small. But we think we should continue to handle wheat through our own co-operative company. The Southern Farmers, Ltd., are the local co-operative society. They originated with the Kwobrup Farmers, who were really a small club of farmers. I started that club, and the object was to try and pool orders, and in that way get some advantage. Latterly we have fallen in with the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.

5855. You said that arrangements were satisfactory in 1916-17. Do you refer to payments?—Yes.